If gravity does not exist, how do accelerometers in phones work

I don't see what John Davis write because of him being ignore list. But I am sure he is supporting my thesis. Since another flat earther have took over the discussing, I don't have to fight anymore. I don't have to see his post, John takes care of the remained discussings.

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 05:57:46 AM

Quote from: turtles on June 17, 2019, 05:21:23 AM

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 04:11:07 AM

Quote from: turtles on June 17, 2019, 04:00:53 AM

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 02:58:56 AM

Quote from: turtles on June 17, 2019, 02:17:56 AM

Quote from: wise on June 16, 2019, 12:46:33 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 14, 2019, 03:58:22 PM

Large bodies of water not having a flat surface proves Earth isn't flat.

Corrected for you. Go to Lake Bakal then you'll see it is completely flat. So you've agreed the earth's being flat. Wellcome fellow flat earther.

You have a picture taken from the beach at one end of Lake Baikal showing the beach at the other end?

There was some videos but recently I have some problems to open youtube. I sent a link to macarios. we can continue after you watch that video I talk about.

Hmmm, but I thought all videos and pictures were fakes?

NASA videos are fake because NASA is liar. But random people may be liar or true.

Right, so all videos that show FET is wrong are fakes because you've decided so?

Actually, not so. We are examining the videos and decide whether they are fake or true. Until now almost all the videos provides by NASA was fake. Of course some videos may be correct. For example I think that the birthday celebration videos of the place NASA ground employees are correct.

Right, but you're the one who gets to decide? You, who believes in creation myths, are the one who gets to decide (whatever happened to the scientific method?) If science is correct?

Creation is what science requires. I look at the scientific evidences. according to the theory of spontaneous formation, the theory of evolution must be correct. but there are too many errors to be true in that theory. Since the theory of evolution is wrong, the theory of spontaneous formation is also wrong. then earth must be created by someone or something. scientific thinking requires such thinking. Is there a need to argue over something that has proven to be wrong? we do not reject science. we reject the imposed fake science. science proves the necessity of faith, not its absence.

It is obviously required that laboratuary experimens have to be exist proves the existance of gravity. There isn't any such experiment. gravity is one of the most ridiculus and nonsense theory ever seen. Accepting it not what science requires but rejecting the science.

It is obviously required that laboratuary experimens have to be exist proves the existance of gravity. There isn't any such experiment.

Stop making FALSE statements.  Countless Cavendish experiments have proven that masses attract.

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 12:35:25 PM

It is obviously required that laboratuary experimens have to be exist proves the existance of gravity. There isn't any such experiment.

Stop making FALSE statements.  Countless Cavendish experiments have proven that masses attract.

So called Cavendish experiments countlessly debunked. We are everytime ready to debunking new so called experiments, but frauds. You need better magicians.

Cavendish experiment isn't a real experiment but a demonstration. There is everytime a cheating to show masses (so called) attract each other. But it everytime happens with an outer affect. And such experiments generally made by random persons seem like clowns, not by scientists.

Actually, not so. We are examining the videos and decide whether they are fake or true.

And your grounds for determining if they are fake is if they show you to be wrong.
If they do, then you dismiss them as fake.
If they don't, then you don't.

Creation is what science requires.

Creation just pushes the problem back and makes it worse.
Not only is it not required, it doesn't help in any way.
It is not is scientific in any way.

It is obviously required that laboratuary experimens have to be exist proves the existance of gravity.

Good thing there are plenty of such laboratory experiments, even ones that you could do yourself which you choose not to.

Now again, care to explain why accelerometers need to use location rather than just measuring the very real downwards force?

It is obviously required that laboratuary experimens have to be exist proves the existance of gravity. There isn't any such experiment. gravity is one of the most ridiculus and nonsense theory ever seen. Accepting it not what science requires but rejecting the science.

Yes and there have been hundreds of high-quality experiments measuring the gravitational constant and YOU have never proven that any of them are invalid.

Now you might not be able to watch the videos and there's little that I can do about that right now but read this with the details of one very accurate experiment, references to others etc.

Now YOU post YOUR evidence proving that "There isn't any such experiment. gravity is one of the most ridiculus and nonsense theory ever seen" or admit that YOU are talking nonsense and have no case!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Do I have to list the details of every experiment to measure G and the details of every simple demonstration of gravitation in every post in every thread?
But, since you insist, I'll include just a little more!

Quote from: Clara Moskowitz

Puzzling Measurement of "Big G" Gravitational Constant Ignites Debate
Despite dozens of measurements over more than 200 years, we still don’t know how strong gravity is

Gravity, one of the constants of life, not to mention physics, is less than constant when it comes to being measured. Various experiments over the years have come up with perplexingly different values for the strength of the force of gravity, and the latest calculation just adds to the confusion.

The results of a painstaking 10-year experiment to calculate the value of “big G,” the universal gravitational constant, were published this month—and they’re incompatible with the official value of G, which itself comes from a weighted average of various other measurements that are mostly mutually incompatible and diverge by more than 10 times their estimated uncertainties.

The gravitational constant “is one of these things we should know,” says Terry Quinn at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Sévres, France, who led the team behind the latest calculation. “It’s embarrassing to have a fundamental constant that we cannot measure how strong it is.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This inherent difficulty has caused big G to become the only fundamental constant of physics for which the uncertainty of the standard value has risen over time as more and more measurements are made. “Though the measurements are very tough, because G is so much weaker than other laboratory forces, we still, as a community, ought to do better,” says University of Colorado at Boulder physicist James Faller, who conducted a 2010 experiment to calculate big G using pendulums.

The first big G measurement was made in 1798 by British physicist Henry Cavendish using an apparatus called a torsion balance. In this setup, a bar with lead balls at either end was suspended from its middle by a wire. When other lead balls were placed alongside this bar, it rotated according to the strength of the gravitational attraction between the balls, allowing Cavendish to measure the gravitational constant.

Quinn and his colleagues’ experiment was essentially a rehash of Cavendish’s setup using more advanced methods, such as replacing the wire with a wide, thin strip of copper beryllium, which allowed their torsion balance to hold more weight. The team also took the further step of adding a second, independent way of measuring the gravitational attraction: In addition to observing how much the bar twisted, the researchers also conducted experiments with electrodes placed inside the torsion balance that prevented it from twisting. The strength of the voltage needed to prevent the rotation was directly related to the pull of gravity. “A strong point of Quinn’s experiment is the fact that they use two different methods to measure G,” says Stephan Schlamminger of the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md., who led a separate attempt in 2006 to calculate big G using a beam balance setup. “It is difficult to see how the two methods can produce two numbers that are wrong, but yet agree with each other.”


Much more in: Scientific AmericanPuzzling Measurement of "Big G" Gravitational Constant Ignites Debate

And there's more:

Quote from: Bob Yirka, Phys.org

New measure of gravitational constant higher than expected
(Phys.org) —A trio of researchers working in France, along with a colleague from the U.K. has re-measured the gravitational constant using the same apparatus they built 12 years ago and have found a small change. In their paper published in Physical Review Letters, the team describes how they reconfigured their original equipment to re-measure the gravitational constant and this time came up with a slightly higher number than before.

Read more at: Puzzling Measurement of "Big G" Gravitational Constant Ignites Debate

And still thers's more! But I'll only posts the links:
            Phys.org, New measure of gravitational constant higher than expected
            Nature, Precision measurement of the Newtonian gravitational constant using cold atoms - and not always will heavy lead balls!

Now I cannot list the precise details of every experiment but here are the results all the "Cavendish type" measurements up to the year 2000:

Results of gravitational constant measurements till 2000.

As seen above gravitation has been measured quite accurately numerous times and demonstrated in ways that can be easily seen many many times.
Here's a few:

The Cavendish experiment and G, Genevieve Roeder-Hensley

Cavendish Experiment Revisited, Andrew Bennett

Cavendish experiment, proving mass derived gravity, flat earth debunker

The Cavendish Experiment at Bishop O'Connell High School, Inside Science

DeHaan Cavendish Balance, James DeHaan

Universal Gravitation Demonstration, Nick Merrill

There is this article with an explanation of the effect gravitation with a very simple set-up to demonstrate it: Bending Spacetime in the Basement.
There are four related videos, all are referenced in the arcticle:

Video 1, John Walker

Video 2, John Walker

Video 3, John Walker

Video 4, John Walker

It is purely a demonstration, no attempt to measure G.

Plenty more where they came from.

Many of these can easily be repeated in any very sheltered location, free from breezes and stray electrostatic and magnetic fields - a basement is ideal.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Yes and there have been hundreds of high-quality experiments measuring the gravitational constant and YOU have never proven that any of them are invalid.

an experiment must meet all scientific requirements. it must be reproducible, understandable, and unobjectionable to everyone.

Now you might not be able to watch the videos and there's little that I can do about that right now but read this with the details of one very accurate experiment, references to others etc.

It is hard to do it. In one hand your fetö partners are preventing me to watch them, on the other you are calling me to watch them. It is clear I can't watch them all but take a look one of them, if you want to choose one of them.

Now YOU post YOUR evidence proving that "There isn't any such experiment.

We have to see claims of experiments and decide whether their being experiments or not. As I said earlier, an experiment has to be "NOT HOAX", understandable by people interest in that issue, repeatable people has the capacity of do it, etc. A claim its being an experiment does not mean its being an experiment. It has to has conditions of a "scentific experiments" to we decide whether its being a "scientific experiment" or not. Your claiming theim being experiment does not make them magically a "scientific experiment".

<many things>

There are many videos those I can not open. If you chose one of them which "YOU MOST TRUST ITS BEING TRUE" then I can take a look at it. Claiming something I can not see can not be an argument.

an experiment must meet all scientific requirements. it must be reproducible, understandable, and unobjectionable to everyone.

Experiments do not need to be understandable or unobjectionable to wilfully ignorant fools.
It just needs to be reproducible, understandable and with adequate controls.
That applies to experiments to measure G.
You lying about it doesn't change that fact.

we decide whether its being a "scientific experiment" or not.

No you don't.
You have shown you have no interest in ever accepting anything that shows you are wrong.

Now again, why can't this downwards force (which is clearly gravity) which you accept exists be what the accelerometers are measuring?

Quote from: turtles on June 17, 2019, 09:07:57 AM

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 05:57:46 AM

Quote from: turtles on June 17, 2019, 05:21:23 AM

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 04:11:07 AM

Quote from: turtles on June 17, 2019, 04:00:53 AM

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 02:58:56 AM

Quote from: turtles on June 17, 2019, 02:17:56 AM

Quote from: wise on June 16, 2019, 12:46:33 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 14, 2019, 03:58:22 PM

Large bodies of water not having a flat surface proves Earth isn't flat.

Corrected for you. Go to Lake Bakal then you'll see it is completely flat. So you've agreed the earth's being flat. Wellcome fellow flat earther.

You have a picture taken from the beach at one end of Lake Baikal showing the beach at the other end?

There was some videos but recently I have some problems to open youtube. I sent a link to macarios. we can continue after you watch that video I talk about.

Hmmm, but I thought all videos and pictures were fakes?

NASA videos are fake because NASA is liar. But random people may be liar or true.

Right, so all videos that show FET is wrong are fakes because you've decided so?

Actually, not so. We are examining the videos and decide whether they are fake or true. Until now almost all the videos provides by NASA was fake. Of course some videos may be correct. For example I think that the birthday celebration videos of the place NASA ground employees are correct.

Right, but you're the one who gets to decide? You, who believes in creation myths, are the one who gets to decide (whatever happened to the scientific method?) If science is correct?

Creation is what science requires. I look at the scientific evidences. according to the theory of spontaneous formation, the theory of evolution must be correct. but there are too many errors to be true in that theory. Since the theory of evolution is wrong,

Then you've misunderstood evolution. No one's questioning it. As a matter of interest, were you bought up believing in "creation"?

the theory of spontaneous formation is also wrong.

I'm not familiar with that term, what do you mean? Like, the Big Bang?

then earth must be created by someone or something. scientific thinking requires such thinking. Is there a need to argue over something that has proven to be wrong? we do not reject science. we reject the imposed fake science. science proves the necessity of faith, not its absence.

But evolution and the big bang have not been proven wrong. Just because you reject all the evidence for them just means that your faith is more important to you than reality.

It is obviously required that laboratuary experimens have to be exist proves the existance of gravity. There isn't any such experiment. gravity is one of the most ridiculus and nonsense theory ever seen. Accepting it not what science requires but rejecting the science.

Drop a hammer on your foot, I think that will prove to you that gravity exists. Obviously we agree there is a downward force on everything, we can see that operating on every object around us, including accelerometers. We just disagree on its nature. I know it can't be an acceleration caused by movement (eg, the UA) as everything would slide off the surface of the globe, I know that it is a force pulling me towards the centre of mass of the globe we stand on, a mass which causes a distortion in space-time that I call that gravity.

I know that you have to create an alternative explanation as your beliefs do not allow for the science to be true. Unfortunately this means you have to dream up complicated and tortuous explanations for phenomenon which are already well understood by science.

But evolution and the big bang have not been proven wrong. Just because you reject all the evidence for them just means that your faith is more important to you than reality.

Meanwhile they have not proven. So why not God but Big Bang, because it is a better theory? But it isn'T. You have nothing but BS.

Experiments do not need to be understandable or unobjectionable to wilfully ignorant fools.

So people do not need the experiments to you. But you are here?

It just needs to be reproducible, understandable and with adequate controls.

It is your claim.  An experiments being reproducible, understandable, and unobjectionable to everyone is enough. But people can not repeat your imaginary magic experiments you know this so you do not accept the requirement of others try it. Surely, an experiment in space only can be made by NASA so we have to accept it right? Nah!

That applies to experiments to measure G.

Again, it does not. You can not do an experiment nobody can repeat then you can not claim you have proved something. You have only fooled yourself. Your fooling yourself isn'T an experiment.

You lying about it doesn't change that fact.

Your baseless insultings are not proving anything but your being in an anger. I have not to accept your lies in the cost of is not blamed by you as liar.

No you don't.

Yes, I do. I did, I do, I will do. You can not provent me do anything. Are you fascist?

You have shown you have no interest in ever accepting anything that shows you are wrong.

Your baseless claims prove nothing. In order to claim me denying everything show me wrong, you have to prove I said it. Stop to childish behaves and grow up. Talk with evidences or shut up.

Now again, why can't this downwards force (which is clearly gravity) which you accept exists be what the accelerometers are measuring?

Again and again and one more time again; why can't this downwards force (which is clearly the atmospheric stringency) which you accept exists be what the accelerometers are measuring?

Meanwhile they have not proven.

That is because science deals with disproof, not proof.
It doesn't matter how much evidence you have in favour of a theory it will technically never be proven in the mathematical sense.
However they have been proven beyond any sane doubt.

So why not God but Big Bang

Because unlike a god, the Big Bang model is supported by evidence and actually helps explains things.
All a god does is push the problem back and compound it.

It is your claim.  An experiments being reproducible, understandable, and unobjectionable to everyone is enough.

No, it is more than enough.
It being "unobjectionable" to people isn't a standard. That is because plenty of people (like you and other FEers) will object to an experiment on the grounds that it shows they are wrong, not for any rational reason.

But people can not repeat your imaginary magic experiments

I didn't bring up any imaginary magic experiments.
The experiments that prove gravity can be repeated by anyone with the time and resources to do so.
Some are simple and have a very low barrier to entry.
Others are much more advanced and have a correspondingly higher barrier to entry.

You have the capability of repeating Cavendish's experiment or one similar to it.
You choosing not to do so doesn't mean you can't.

In order to claim me denying everything show me wrong, you have to prove I said it.

No, I just need to show you repeatedly denying things that prove you are wrong.
This forum has plenty of examples of that.

Again and again and one more time again; why can't this downwards force (which is clearly the atmospheric stringency) which you accept exists be what the accelerometers are measuring?

No, it is clearly gravity. Atmospheric stringency makes no sense.
But I had already said that it was this downwards force which both you and I accept (although you go to fantasy for the explanation) being what the accelerometer measures. But you say that isn't the case and instead it uses location data.
So does this now mean you accept that accelerometers are measuring the downwards force?

< :'(I replied wrong post>

Your post shows you replied me but this is not the post you have referred. Look at both posts above. They are quite different what I wrote and what you replied, but you are referring it. Only one or two statements are same and others are different. You are clearly manipulating my post, shamesly! So it was hard to answer for you, my last post, right? So you have chosed to copy paste the older one. Good tactic, if I would not aware you would be success. Now, stop to cry and reply my last post, not the another one! Go!

Check his software may be broken, rab? reset or format to jackblack may be useful.

Your post shows you replied me but this is not the post you have referred. Look at both posts above. They are quite different what I wrote and what you replied, but you are referring it. Only one or two statements are same and others are different. You are clearly manipulating my post, shamesly! So it was hard to answer for you, my last post, right? So you have chosed to copy paste the older one. Good tactic, if I would not aware you would be success. Now, stop to cry and reply my last post, not the another one! Go!

Check his software may be broken, rab? reset or format to jackblack may be useful.

Lying wont help you.
All the quotes are what you said. They were from 2 posts, as clearly indicated by the quote tags.

Now care to address what has been said?

Why can't the downwards force we both agree exists (even if you cling to fantasy to explain it) be what an accelerometer measures?

Quote from: wise on June 26, 2019, 02:17:51 AM

Your post shows you replied me but this is not the post you have referred. Look at both posts above. They are quite different what I wrote and what you replied, but you are referring it. Only one or two statements are same and others are different. You are clearly manipulating my post, shamesly! So it was hard to answer for you, my last post, right? So you have chosed to copy paste the older one. Good tactic, if I would not aware you would be success. Now, stop to cry and reply my last post, not the another one! Go!

Check his software may be broken, rab? reset or format to jackblack may be useful.

Lying wont help you.
All the quotes are what you said. They were from 2 posts, as clearly indicated by the quote tags.

Now care to address what has been said?

Why can't the downwards force we both agree exists (even if you cling to fantasy to explain it) be what an accelerometer measures?

It can be but the thing it measures can not be the gravity. you will claim that we accept gravitation when we accept that test because you are globuliars.

It can be

And finally you accept it.
Now, why did you start by saying it had to use location data?
Do you admit that was wrong?

Quote from: wise on June 26, 2019, 04:06:18 AM

It can be

And finally you accept it.
Now, why did you start by saying it had to use location data?
Do you admit that was wrong?

Nope. Since you are ignorant so you don't get what I mean. There is no way in this system but using location data. I said it can be, not it does. but this does not mean that gravity can be used in any way, because it is absent in all ways. There is still no relevant with accelerometers and gravity; because the first one is exist and the second one is absent. All you do is manipulation. Stop BS now and grow up!

Nope. Since you are ignorant so you don't get what I mean. There is no way in this system but using location data.

You literally just accepted that it can use the very real downwards force.
So why did you appeal to location before?
Why are you now contradicting yourself and claiming that it needs to use location data?

Quote from: turtles on June 18, 2019, 04:02:31 AM

But evolution and the big bang have not been proven wrong. Just because you reject all the evidence for them just means that your faith is more important to you than reality.

Meanwhile they have not proven. So why not God but Big Bang, because it is a better theory? But it isn'T. You have nothing but BS.

Evolution and the big bang fit the evidence. God doesn't.

Quote from: wise on June 26, 2019, 05:35:26 AM

Nope. Since you are ignorant so you don't get what I mean. There is no way in this system but using location data.

You literally just accepted that it can use the very real downwards force.
So why did you appeal to location before?
Why are you now contradicting yourself and claiming that it needs to use location data?

I don't deny the downward affect. I deny the gravity. Get it jackblack? downward affect and gravity are different things. downward affect, is not, gravity, jackblack. The question "If gravity does not exist, how do accelerometers in phones work". The question is illogical.

Quote from: wise on June 24, 2019, 05:49:30 AM

Quote from: turtles on June 18, 2019, 04:02:31 AM

But evolution and the big bang have not been proven wrong. Just because you reject all the evidence for them just means that your faith is more important to you than reality.

Meanwhile they have not proven. So why not God but Big Bang, because it is a better theory? But it isn'T. You have nothing but BS.

Evolution and the big bang fit the evidence. God doesn't.

Which evidence?

Did you figure out why objects in free fall feel no force?

Did you ever make a gravity experiment?

I put a scale in a vacuum desiccator to show denpressure wasn’t real.   

I don't deny the downward affect. I deny the gravity.

And that has nothing to do with what I am saying.
GET IT?

You accept that a downwards force exists.
You even accepted that that can be what accelerometers are measuring.
But you reject that and resort to nonsense by claiming they must use location data.
WHY?
Why do you assert that accelerometers need to use location data?

Your nonsensical rejection of gravity has very little bearing on the topic with how you have gone about it.

If you wanted to reject gravity, all you would have to do is appeal to some magical downwards force, rather than appealing to location data which makes no sense at all.

I put a scale in a vacuum desiccator to show denpressure wasn’t real.

Have you ever made a test with a steel ball and a plastic ball from the same height and see which one has fallen before? If you did not, so you did not make a gravity experiment at all.

That's not the only experiment. 

Quote from: sokarul on July 01, 2019, 02:16:42 PM

I put a scale in a vacuum desiccator to show denpressure wasn’t real.

Have you ever made a test with a steel ball and a plastic ball from the same height and see which one has fallen before? If you did not, so you did not make a gravity experiment at all.

In air, a light plastic ball will fall slightly slower than the steel ball due to air resistance but in a vacuum chamber, even a feather will fall at the same rate as steel ball.

Have YOU ever performed either experiment and demonstrated the difference.

But the topic is "If gravity does not exist, how do accelerometers in phones work". Have you yet worked out what an accelerometer even measures?

Have you ever made a test with a steel ball and a plastic ball from the same height and see which one has fallen before? If you did not, so you did not make a gravity experiment at all.

While not plastic, I have dropped other materials, and they fall together, showing there is a downwards force which is dependent upon the mass of the object, rather than its volume or area.
I have also done experiments with buoyancy which shows the medium the object is in provides an upwards force based upon the volume displaced and the density of the fluid.

Now care to explain why you assert location data needs to be used for accelerometers?